Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeMind


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FreeMind

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, no sources Boatsdesk (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Boatsdesk is a new editor. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Please do your homework and give arguments in support of your AfD request. Just pointing out that the article misses sources is not per se an argument to delete an entry (you should use the template instead). As for the ludicrous non-notability claim (here it comes again...), Freemind has an average of more than 5,000 downloads/day and a significant coverage in blogs and open source related sources. --DarTar (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see where downloads equals notability. Also, if there is such significant coverage in blogs, please incorporate it into the article. Boatsdesk (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC) [Edit: Also, I nominated for deletion because of Ronz' comment on the FreeMind discussion from Oct 08. Sorry, I'm new here and did not know about the Citation tag) Boatsdesk (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Downloads have been one of the criteria historically used to assess the popularity of software. Not that I like this particularly, but you would be expected to make some preliminary research before requesting an AfD. If it is the case that you are "new" here, may I ask why instead of improving the article, you registered to Wikipedia just to request the deletion of a stub as your very first edit? --DarTar (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Number of downloads may be a criterion for measuring popularity, but popularity is not an inclusion criterion for Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very active community on sourceforge.net, good example of successful OS software in my opinion. What is needed to improve the WP page? --Method1955 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2009 (GMT+1)
 * Note that Method1955 is a new editor --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that Boatsdesk is a new editor, he requested a VfD as his first WIkipedia edit without even knowing, by his own admission, the guidelines relative to stubs--DarTar (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't illegal to be a new user. We all started there.  Remember, please do not bite the newcomers. Ikluft (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria for stubs are no different from the inclusion criteria for our longest articles. I would advise DarTar to become familiar with Wikipedia guidelines before trying to lecture other people on them. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Delete or stub This is one of the annoying stub articles that attracts a great deal of spam, while never meeting WP:N criteria through multiple, independent sources. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promotion of products and technologies. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep. The article now has two uncontested sources that demonstrate notability.--Ronz (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I was easily able to find references and added them to the article. This is my usual test on an AfD.  If I can find acceptable refs, I add them and vote "keep".  If I can't and it looks like it will never have any, I vote "delete".  This one passes that test. Ikluft (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   —Ikluft (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Refs have been added and the download counter is high enough. --Nils Lindenberg (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Nils Lindenberg is a new editor. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't edit much on en with my user name, but I have a lot of wp-experience (see my user-page at de). --134.76.2.28 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Mostly because I forget to log myself in. --Nils Lindenberg (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Some refs are available, there seems to be use for this program and thus at least some people using or willing to integrate it with their own software. --BenBE1987 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that BenBE1987 has only one previous edit. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have to repeat this. Please do not bite the newcomers.  It at least carries the appearance of being unfriendly to point at new editors like that.  If someone makes a mistake and you notice they're new, offer help.  If they persist, then deal with it on a case-by-case basis.  But don't pick on someone who has only expressed an opinion (opposing yours, I should add!) for being new.  New editors are not excluded from AfD discussion by any policy.  I urge the closing editor not to consider disparaging remarks against new editors because it's simply contrary to WP guidelines to do that, and it isn't nice. Ikluft (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is biting the newcomers here. Please follow WP:NPA and stick to the topic at hand.  Identifying new editors in an AfD is standard procedure.  Attacking editors because you don't like this procedure is disruptive to this AfD. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No attack intended. My concern remains unanswered.  Please keep it to the point - which policy or guideline is behind that "standard procedure" of calling out new editors?  That would be the only convincing argument that it isn't biting them.  After all, that's the first line at WP:AfD. Ikluft (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Better to take WP:BITE accusations to the editor's talk page, than violate WP:NPA by bringing it up here. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat the question since it's still unanswered. Which policy or guideline is behind that "standard procedure" of calling out new editors? Ikluft (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If there isn't an answer to that (which is apparently the case) then I'd advise reconsidering whoever's example made that appear "standard". It was a bad example that shouldn't be followed.  It can reasonably be expected that calling out new editors will be taken personally by those subjected to it in any AfD discussion. Ikluft (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sincerely, I'm quite shocked about this AfD... and more important, about its discussion. FreeMind is the only GPL software that stands up against proprietary mindmapping solutions. Its importance and contributions to the field have great acknowledgement, and it is easy to prove it. I won't include the references into the article but i can post a few here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... As another test, in Ohloh it's ranked on page 6 of 8776 pages ordered by popularity, before important projects such as GNU Mailman, OpenSuse, Plone, Mantis, Eclipse Mylyn, Apache Lucene, Symfony, PHPUnit... --Samer.hc (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much that the AfD nomination was made. AfD discussions are about consensus over whether Wikipedia policies and guidelines support deletion of the article, not a straight-up vote.  The closing admin will look at whether consensus was reached and who made the most convincing policy-related statements.  This one appears to be on course to survive.  Thanks for the references.  I added the MacWorld ref to the article due to your submission.  The Innovation Tools ref was already in the article.  The LinuxMag ref requires a login so I skipped it.  (I had found that in my search too.)  The #4 and #5 refs look like blogs, which aren't good enough to be reliable sources so I had to skip those.  So one new reliable source (MacWorld) is still quite helpful.  I also added an additional reference from a Fox Business News article.  So this article has risen well above any claim of being unsourced. Ikluft (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Enough reliable sources have been presented to provide notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. I'm shocked someone could even regard FreeMind as not notable, when it's the first Open Source and cross-platform mind mapping software out there. It has always been open source and cross-platform (since the project's start in 2000), and in that category has only been joined late last year by an Open Source version of XMind (which even has support for importing FreeMind files but doesn't have the full functionality of the non-free "Pro" version). There are some other (newer) Open Source mind mapper projects (like for instance Labyrinth), but these are not cross-platform. FreeMind stands out as the first completely Open Source, completely cross-platform mind mapping software. If that isn't notable enough, then we can add that in February 2006 it was Project of the Month at SourceForge.net before being nominated for Best Project in SourceForge's Community Choice Awards for 2008. Others have already referred to numbers of downloads and the variety of other software that supports FreeMind. --JavaWoman (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wonder why there are so strange criteria for softwares. I guess they are there to avoid single hobbyist software writers to use Wikipedia to advertise their "silly" homemade software that only they and their friends use. FreeMind is not surely the case. And again a would like to discuss the sense of Wikipedia and knowledge; to me, if the deletion criterion is valid for FreeMind, with the proper "translation" it could also be valid for rare words, or some scientific terms which are known by less than 5000 people on this earth. But maybe this is another topic. Just keep the first part: FreeMind is not an homemade unknown software, and like other software on Wikipedia, it deserves the page. --Ittakezou0 (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.